www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Feminism and the English Language

I disagree strongly. When young people hear the terms "men" and "mankind" they are very able to understand from the context that those being referenced include all men from Adam and Eve to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming.

I recommend that PrJ study and accept Liturgiam Authenticam. It calls us to educate people about exactly these things. Literal accuracy in translation is necessary to effectively communicate the Gospel.

I agree. His points are valid and interesting for discussion yet I would not use them to support my position on Liturgy and translation. That is why I quote from solid Catholic and Orthodox sources.

I want to add my support to much of what Fr. John has said, and I also found Penthaetria�s remarks quite interesting. I have heard similar statements from women (some Orthodox).

I want to make some comments that do not address feminism directly, but respond to some peripheral comments made by administrator in posts 280859 and 280940 in this thread.

It is true that Liturgy must attend to Tradition, but a part of Tradition is that Liturgy is our living worship of God. This is why I�ve insisted that the restoration of the presbyteral prayers is so important when the Liturgy comes to be celebrated in the vernacular language. This is an expression of the Paschal Mystery and it is this that Christianity is all about. Objection: does that mean that there has been no Christianity for centuries. No, I would not say that, but it�s presentation has been somewhat hobbled, and this is due to the Liturgy being celebrated in languages that were not easily accessible to the people.

It was the intention of the bishops, clergy and faithful who worked on the Inter-eparchial Liturgy and Music Commissions to present the message of Christ to people through the Liturgy. Even Administrator John admits that, and has said many times that those who worked on the Liturgy are well-intentioned. At the same time, he claims it is a �demonstrable fact� that the new translation is bad, and, indeed, seems to give it no value whatsoever. This leads inevitably to the conclusion that if we are �well-intentioned,� then we must also be quite dull or unaware or whatever.

On the contrary, I think part of the problem is the assumptions that are being made. The primary assumption is that an authentic Liturgy, one faithful to the Byzantine tradition, can be and can only be one that corresponds exactly and literally - word for word and comma for comma - to the 1941 Oriental Congregation edition for the Ruthenian recension. Having made this assumption, one is then led to many other assumptions, some of which are contradictory.

1) The 1941 translation is a work of the Oriental Congregation. However, the same dicastery has said (in 2001), that the 2007 translation is in essential agreement with the tradition of this recension and the norms of faithfulness to the Eastern tradition as spelled out in the 1996 Liturgical Instruction. We are permitted to disagree with this approval, but we cannot deny the right of the Oriental Congregation to interpret its own documents. Likewise, we may express the opinion that we should follow other Vatican directives such as LA and others, while noting that they are not addressed to the Eastern Churches. Most certainly, we are not de jure being disobedient to Rome, as John tries to claim. He may say that we are not in harmony with the �reform of the reform,� but nothing more. It should also be pointed out that LA was not expressly anti-feminist, but that it was trying to correct what it considered certain excesses in translation, and even said that instruction must be provided to the faithful if some texts were interpreted in too anti-feminist a manner. The Church is and remains very sensitive to the needs of women in today�s society.

2) The goal of the 1941 recension was to eliminate �latinizations� from the Eastern Liturgy (at least almost all of them). There are other methods of doing this than an absolute literal application of the 1941 translation. The goal of the 2007 translation is to bring our churches closer to the Byzantine tradition. What is so curious about the attack of many members of the Byzantine Forum is that the villains seem to be the translators who worked on this project - with the goal of producing a pastoral version of the Ruthenian recension faithful to tradition - and not the many members of the Church who from the 17th century to the present have worked so hard to bring latinizations into the our church. John will claim that the 2007 translation is a subtle latinization, but, for that matter, the same claim could be made of the 1941 translation (a work of a Western committee, especially of one man, a former Roman Catholic, imposed on a Byzantine Church), and still ignores the not so subtle latinizations that created the situation which the 2007 translation is trying to correct. The wrong people are being attacked. This, of course, can be understood if the goal of the attack is to protect the assumption that only an exact literal edition of the 1941 recension can express Byzantine tradition. In this case, it would not matter if you have a twenty minute �mass� with no litanies, epistle or repetitious hymns, or if you only omit one �Wisdom� that is found in the 1941 book - both are outside the pale and are equally condemned.

3) The assumption is also made - and this is what I call the �Gutenberg Assumption,� is that the 1964 translation was actually the standard for our Church. It was not - and that was made explicit by the bishops of that time by means of explicit instruction as to how the book was to be used. Certainly, this led to an anomaly, but anomalies of this sort have always existed, and any student of liturgy knows that what you find in an official document or manuscript is not necessarily how the Liturgy was celebrated in the actual lived situation. Everyone should read Fr. Taft�s book, Through Their Own Eyes. For the situation to be �rectified� would require an official mandate from the bishops, it�s not going to happen by itself. But we have problems with mandates. The 2007 translation is a step toward that renewal. This is true of the presbyteral prayers. If you follow the 1941/1964 recension exactly, the presbyteral prayers should be read aloud. There is nothing that says they are to be said silently. That comes from experience of the Liturgy outside the written text.

4) Finally John says (post 280859):
�Authenticity in Liturgy is the goal. It works. Always.

Fabricated Liturgy does not work. Ever.�

Stop - think - the only authentic liturgy is not literal correspondence to the 1941 recension. Otherwise, we have not been celebrating an authentic liturgy for centuries - we do not say the presbyteral prayers aloud. If, indeed, we celebrate the 1964 �red book,� according to some lived traditions outside the written texts - silent presbyteral prayers, e.g. - then we are celebrating a �fabricated liturgy.� We are celebrating the essential Liturgy of Nicon�s reform - which was founded on the basis that the Greek texts were apostolic, while the received Slav texts of the time were not - which was a false assumption, and so a whole liturgy and liturgical language was �fabricated.� And it was imposed on the people in quite a non-Christian manner. However, that liturgy was quite successful - it worked! It is the Liturgy that is still frequently defended on this forum - today, more that 400 years later. Maybe the Spirit was guiding Nicon, and maybe the Spirit is guiding our bishops and translators today.

Dear Father David,
As a married man whose wife despises feminism and inclusive language (she got me rolling on this issue long before I came across this church forum), what exactly are those *needs of women* you and others continually refer to (all in the context of *sensitivity*, of course) but never specify? I would be interested in what you perceive to be their needs. And which women have vocalized these *needs* to you and the translators and your bishops? Can you point us to the public platform and avenues taken where women have presented their *needs* that justified altering Scripture and the words used in worship? My aunt wasn't invited and probably would have given you an earful. But these women, the pushers and shakers of liturgical worship and the aggiornamento of the Byzantine lexicon of worship, seem to be quite anonymous; not publically vocal; like shadows behind closed doors.

Ed

Stop - think - the only authentic liturgy is not literal correspondence to the 1941 recension. Otherwise, we have not been celebrating an authentic liturgy for centuries - we do not say the presbyteral prayers aloud. If, indeed, we celebrate the 1964 �red book,� according to some lived traditions outside the written texts - silent presbyteral prayers, e.g. - then we are celebrating a �fabricated liturgy.� We are celebrating the essential Liturgy of Nicon�s reform - which was founded on the basis that the Greek texts were apostolic, while the received Slav texts of the time were not - which was a false assumption, and so a whole liturgy and liturgical language was �fabricated.� And it was imposed on the people in quite a non-Christian manner. However, that liturgy was quite successful - it worked! It is the Liturgy that is still frequently defended on this forum - today, more that 400 years later. Maybe the Spirit was guiding Nicon, and maybe the Spirit is guiding our bishops and translators today. [/quote]

Fr. David,

Many parishes never had icon screens installed in their parishes for fifty years. Does that mean we shouldn't install them now since these churches never had icon screens?

Just because the Ruthenian Churches haven't been celebrating according to the Ruthenian Recension for 44 years, does that mean we refrain from trying to celebrate the full recension now or in the near future?

Ung

Dear Father David,

In all the work to remedy the subtle Latinizations, and the decision to return to ancient Greek titles and words, why did you Byzantine Catholics fear using the *O* word (Orthodox) as other Eastern Catholics? The corrections you speak about seem to be a cafeteria-style correction, not a wholesale consistent Easternization. And, of course, inclusive language. It looks like one *situation* was replaced with another.

Ed

I'm reposting with one modification, with a different Greek font, and with the questions indicated now by their colored mark, thus: ?


Father, if you're as good as you say you are, I can't imagine who could better explain it to me and other "people who have not studied Greek as long or as in as much depth as [you] have." So please give it a try: Three easy questions requiring two straightforward answers.

While you're at it, please answer this too. Do you think there is an intended link between Τόν δι� ημάς τούς ανθρώπους and καί ενανθρωπήσαντα?

You see I've asked before, why is it that, as in the RDL translation, men must be dropped from for us men yet it is OK to then say and became man?

Detailed explanations are not necessary to my first four questions; yes or no type answers are fine, I'll try to figure out the rest myself. Any insights on the last question could clear things up for me a lot. If you could please answer those questions, us simple folks would sure be most appreciative.

Dn. Anthony

I find it strange that the Pope is struggling to return the words of the Creed from *we believe* to *I believe* (=credo). I guess 'credo' really does mean *I believe*. The argument was made at one time to go the way of contemporary needs and forego the actual words of the credal text. That argument has lost its moving force and is being checked by your Pope. I am sure the bishops who adopted the *we believe* had good intentions and that the Masses over the years that used it was still valid in Catholic eyes. But the Pope rejects it.

The same goes for another popular communal bunch of words, the *People of God* title for the church. I believe that it too was debunked from within the Catholic Church because of its failure to include the saints(!)in Heaven in that same church community. I am sure there were more reasons, but the *People* of God sounded wonderful, it fulfilled pulp *needs*, it worked for several years ... and then it was debunked.

Liberation theology served a need too. But the last Pope didn't buy it.

There are lot of good intentions out there. But those who were responsible for writing the Creed didn't do it for the sake of good intentions or *needs*, however noble and equalitarian they were. Liberal theology usually generates the opposite result of its intentions. Orthodoxy (even the word itself instills shivers in some church spines and will never find a home in ANY Latinized vintage of worship) operates on a different set of principles, not looking for fads, tickling people's ears, or servicing high maintenance and *needy* people. We all have *needs*. This is nothing new. We also have wants, desires, memories, ideas, a view on life. But Peter writes in his letter that we should become *partakers of the divine nature*; an interesting concept for Christians, especially Byzantine ones. In the rush to satisfy all those human *needs* out there, does anyone think that Peter's instructions would get notice? or will everyone be busy trying to get their *needs* satisfied first? We are truly *needy* people. Is Father David saying that women have greater *needs* that must be met in their journey to salvation? Exactly, what is a *need*?

Ed

Good intentions do not guarantee a good outcome. Even people who are brilliant in their respective fields can miss the mark. I reject the idea that because I believe (and have demonstrated) that the problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy are so numerous it needs to be rescinded inevitably leads to the conclusion that those who created it are either dull, unaware or something else.

As I have stated repeatedly the combination that makes up the Revised Liturgy � revised rubrics, revised texts and revised music � as a package are unacceptable. Father David has admitted himself on this forum that the Church is in �crisis� because of the Revised Divine Liturgy. Many of our faithful have been hurt. Hurting people cannot be justified.

No. That is not the primary assumption and certainly not one I have ever made. The 1941 Divine Liturgy is the official Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension and the Pittsburgh Metropolia is part of the Ruthenian recension. Among other things it is also a standard of unity.

We are clearly called to unity with our fellow Byzantines � both Catholic and Orthodox. We are especially called to unity with our fellow Ruthenians � both Catholic and Orthodox.

Actually I have provided extensive documentation from several sources � including the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) to support my position. I can agree that LA was trying to correct failures of earlier translations of the Latin Rite Mass. And that instruction must be provided if some of the faithful did not understand that terms like �men� and �mankind� came across to some as anti-women. But even a causal read of LA can see that the RDL copies these errors. Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, spoke to this explicitly in his 2002 letter (which I have referenced extensively earlier in these discussions). The removal of the term �man� from the Creed in �who for us and our salvation�, the replacement of the inclusive term �mankind� with the potentially exclusive term �us all� are two of the examples discussed here. Even if they were the only two problems with the RDL they are mistakes that justify the rescinding and reprinting of the Liturgy books.

I find it very strange that the bishops rely on an approval date in 2001 when so much has happened since then (LA was issued later in 2001). The texts and rubrics should have scrubbed for complete accuracy to not just the standard for Liturgy we share with others but also to the Vatican directives like LA.

Further in his points 2 and 3 Father David speaks of attacking people. I certainly have never done that and that is not what we allow on the Forum. Principled disagreement � even strongly expressed - does not equate personal attack. I have spoken repeatedly that well intentioned men, who are certainly devout followers of the Lord, have made mistakes because they began with false assumptions. That is not personal attack.

I have never once suggested that authentic liturgy can only be such that is in literal correspondence to the 1941. I have repeatedly stated that all reform needs to be done by Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox) working together. Not sure why Father David keeps ignoring this for it is clear in the �Liturgical Instruction� (see especially sections 21 and 29).

The words about �fabricated liturgy� come from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). He has studied and found problems with some of the principles used in the RDL. It makes absolutely no sense to copy them when they did not work for the Romans.

We know that the 1941 Liturgy � the vast majority of which is common across Orthodoxy � works and works well. If someday it changes those changes should be a simple allowance of those that develop across all the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) over time. The Liturgical Instruction speaks to this clearly. I continue to ask the bishops of the Ruthenian Church of Pittsburgh to rescind this Revised Divine Liturgy and replace it with the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. Since so many of the faithful have been hurt by this revision I recommend that the base text be that which is common (1964) admitting only those correction which are truly required. Then instead of mandates use the tried and true method of education, example and encouragement to raise the level of celebration in our parishes. In an earlier discussion Father David used the term "crisis" to describe the current climate in the Pittsburgh Ruthenian Metropolia. Too many people are continuing to be hurt to allow it to continue. I ask the bishops to end the crisis by rescinding the RDL. And I certainly will continue in my formal petitions to Rome to guarantee the right of both clergy and lay faithful to have access to the full 1941 Divine Liturgy, the one that we share with others, in an accurate English translation free from political correctness.

John

I know I am leading the discussion even more off topic but I think there is wisdom in Father Taft's words. I posted it in another discussion not to long ago. It is from his most interesting article "The Evolution of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy" in Orientalia Christiana Periodica XLIII, Roma 1977, p. 8-30.

This quote is very appropriate to the discussion and really bolsters the position I have supported (stick to the official books and let God work in His own time):

Trust the living tradition! Wonderful! Definitely a message worth listening to.

Dear John,

Like your namesake, you are a voice crying out in the wilderness of your church community. I have faith that Rome will finally take notice of what is going on in your community and rescind it.

Ed

I strongly disagree with Fr. David. My version of the 1941 Rome sluzhebnik specifically notes "Vozhlasheniye" before those "exclamation points" at the end of the presbyteral prayers. In the Anaphora, the note for exclamation is only noted immediately before the words of instution. Similarly before the Epiclesis. At the beginning of these presbyteral prayers the text notes "Ierei molitisya", obviously "the priest prays", and would seem to be a specific and obvious contrast to "vozhlasheniye".

I believe if the intention and mandate was clear for these to be taken aloud, the initial instruction would not be "Ierei molitisya". And indeed, this was the convention both in Synodal and Old Rite texts as well, and in nearly all cases the majority were taken silently until the "exclamations".

The 1964 and the 1988 UGCC editions clearly all indicate "Exclamation" or something along those lines at the end of many presbyteral prayers in complete consistency with the 1941 edition; a reasonable person would conclude what preceded was not taken very loudly to prompt an instruction for an exclamation.

And this is the usual interpretation across not only Greek Catholic but also Orthodox sluzhebnyky.

To claim there is instruction for any of the Anaphora to be mandated aloud is simply not true in the Rome books. In fact if one was "following exactly", one would take the prebyteral prayers in a tone and volume that would lend emphasis to the distinction between "the priest prays" and the "exclamation".

Mandating abbreviations, using innovative modern language (and arguably rubrics) not previously used in any mainstream Greek Catholic or Orthodox text in common usage would certainly not seem to be a serious attempt to bring anything closer to the "Byzantine tradition". Rather more consistency with sister Churches in a more united common usage would seem to be perhaps a better strategy in meeting such a goal.


First of all the committee was more than Cyril Korolevsky; I would daresay the situation is not so different as the IELC where one voice and writer's hand shone forth more than the rest and whose name and signature is seen with much more frequency than any of the others.

Secondly, indeed Metropolitan Andrey was using this to ccounterract several of his own "latinized" hierarchs whom he knew would not respond favorably to a more authentic version of the rescension without the approval of Rome. But we also know from the likes of Blessed Mykola Charnetsky, Blessed Vasyl Velychkovsky and others that something very, very close to the 1941 Ordo was being used with great success in Volynia and Metropolitan Andrey was keenly aware of this from the historical correspondence.

Anyone who studies liturgy seriously knows these things take sometimes several generations for proper implementation and objective measurement. 1941, especially given the World War, the Soviet era as well as all of the various difficulties in North America ( Cum Data Fuerit , splits and lawsuits, etc) is not so long ago.

If by "subtle latinizations" we are back to the aloud Anaphora, again any serious study will show that even the mandate of Justinian did not sway the vast majority of clerics and hierarchs; one must also discern what the real sensus fidelium has turned out to be in this case, especially with the hierarchy and clergy.

While the Ordo is certainly not without its shortfalls, it is a work of genius which has been acknowledged by those inside and outside of the "Ruthenian Rescension", Orthodox as well as Catholic. My Patriarch and Synod have mandated it as obligatory for my Church (UGCC), and I applaud them for being able to acknowledge the prophetic foresight of Metropolitan Andrey.

I have not found much at all that I could consider faulty with the Ordo as a useable document; even with its arguably most "latinized" aspect I would argue that the notes in the 1941 Ordo for the "Simple Celebration" of the Divine Liturgy are not all that inconsistent with what I have seen in some Orthodox monastic communities where one reader sings the responses at an "early Liturgy" conducted in a side chapel or another smaller chapel.

Dn. Antony, I know see five questions (five ?) -- what are the four questions you want answered. I still am confused.

Father, are you kidding me?

There is a quote block containing three questions that are in a previous post. In the first paragraph after that I ask you to reconsider answering those three questions as appropriate, i.e that two be answered.

I then added a forth and fifth. I then say, emphasis added:



Please note that I say "first four." The first four questions are 1 through 4 in the order in which they appear. The "last question" referred to is the fifth in the sequence, which is the last question.

But let me simplify it: Please answer all the questions; thanks.

Dn. Anthony